Before proceeding to the study of this extremely delicate matter, it is advisable to recall what follows:Most of the facts alleged in Coffin’s affidavit of October 9th, 1955, or having been the subject of affidavits, declarations, received or other documents transmitted to the Department of Justice, were in direct relation with some of the facts proven during the Percé trial and mainly withheld by the judges of appeal courts; more particularly the facts related to the MacGregor incidence, the jeep tracks, Arnold’s jeep, and the one seen by the Wilson’s, the Tapp’s, Hackett’s and Régis Quirion, to payments received by Coffin before his departure from Gaspé and to the disappearance of Jack Eagle’s rifle;Maître Gravel, one of Coffin’s counsels, has admitted before this Commission that when it was decided to not hear Coffin, almost all the facts, true or not, alleged in the affidavit and which were previous to this decision were known by the defence;According to Coffin’s affidavit, if these facts then known by the defence and if the explanations given by Coffin in his affidavit were not communicated to the jury, it was solely because, contrarily to the strong desire that he had to testify, Coffin was advised by only one of his counsels to not testify and to not present a defence;All the facts that Coffin and his counsels pretended to know when that decision to not present a defence was taken, all the facts the pretended knowledge of which would only have been acquired after that decision but before the execution of the affidavit of October 9th, 1955, and all the other facts subsequently known or alleged which might, if they had been proven during the trial, have had a bearing on the verdict of guiltiness formed the subject of an exhaustive enquiry by the Commission.Previously, we have studied the proof which has been submitted to us regarding these known or alleged facts and have given our conclusions. Do these studies and conclusions allow us to answer the question the way it is stated?Obviously, one may not say what might had been the effect on the jury of a proof, whether of facts that knew or pretended to know Coffin and his counsels when the Crown ended the presentation of its proof during the Percé trial, whether facts which might have been known or which they pretended having known after the condemnation and before his execution, or facts which were only known after the execution and which were proven before us; this would be pure speculation and conjecture.The problem arises, however, from a special angle because Coffin has not testified.1. We know that if Coffin has not presented a defence, it was with full knowledge, with his assent and on the advice of his counsels. We also know that one of the main reasons for which this decision was taken was the certainty that if Coffin was called to testify, the Crown, would oppose him his declaration of August 6th, 1953 to put him in contradiction with himself and that these new contradictions, added to the proof already establishing the falseness of his verbal declarations reported by officers Doyon and Sinnett, would have constituted a proof stronger yet that the one that had been made of his lies as to his conduct during the three fateful days during which the crimes were committed. We also know that, when that decision was taken, Coffin and his counsels knew or pretended to know most of the facts alleged by Coffin in his affidavit, and that despite the knowledge of these facts or pretended facts, the decision was nevertheless taken to keep quiet. As Maître Maher affirmed, “if Coffin had been heard, the institution of this Commission would not have been necessary,” in other words the certainty of the jury that Coffin was guilty would have been, if possible, considerably increased.We know today, so much from Coffin’s declarations not proven at the trial than from the proof laid before us, the falsehoods of the affirmations in the affidavit of 9th, October 1955 as to the jeep tracks, the Arnold’s jeep, and the value of his mining claims, as to payments received by Coffin before the 12th, June 1953, as to his possession of substantial amounts of money on his departure on the 12th, June for Montreal, as to the age of the occupants of the jeep he pretended having seen, as to the description of that jeep, as much falsehoods that Coffin and/or his counsels knew or that the latter should have known; and we also know that the Crown would have been in a better position than it was today to bring out the falsehoods or this impossibility if Coffin had offered some proof in defence.On this first score, it appears to me that, from the moment it is established that it is voluntarily, through necessity and with Coffin’s assent, that counsels for the defence did not call Coffin or other persons as witnesses, the present enquiry has furnished major additional reasons for not believing in Coffin’s innocence.2. Three facts laid in proof before us, but that the Percé jury was not aware of, themselves, of sufficiently serious nature to give us major additional and hardly refutable reasons for not believing in Coffin’s non guiltiness; these facts are as follows:A. As we have seen, if Wilbert Coffin was not heard at his trial, it was not because, contrarily as to what he sought manifestly to make believe at paragraph 3 of his affidavit of 9th October 1955, he wanted to testify and was dissuaded from doing so by one of his counsels, Maître Maher, but truly because he was persuaded by his counsels that it would be dangerous for him to do so and because his counsels considered, with just cause, a) that it might be fatal to his case, to expose him to a cross-examination by the Crown counsels and to a confrontation with certain declarations which he had made and which had not been adduced yet in evidence by the Crown and b) that it might be very dangerous for his credibility and the effect of his testimony before the jury, to give way to a counter-proof by the Crown; let us add to the additional fact relating to the first ones that it is with Coffin’s full consent and acquiescence that the defence did not call him to testify nor other witnesses.In my opinion, the falsehood of paragraph 3 of Coffin’s affidavit, paragraph which is at the basis and which constituted the only justification for the rest of the affidavit, was sufficient in itself to vitiate the truthfulness of all the affidavit, to render highly suspect the other affirmations in the affidavit, to underline more Coffin’s deceitful attitude and whence to increase the strength of presumptions of guiltiness withheld by the Percé jury and appeal courts. (To be continued)

8 commentaires:

C. Barnes
a dit...

The fact that the leading experts on the Coffin case Alten Price and Clement Fortin have now joined together so they should be able to convince most everyone that Coffin was guilty. It is too0 bad gentlemen that you could not have got together on this years ago when one considers the enormous amount of information that you both have gathered.

I am sure down deep this will be peace of mind for the Coffin family even though you do not support the theory that Wilbert Coffin was innocent. Could I ask mr. Price when you reached this conclusion?

I am sure coffin knew nothing of the law, this was the reason he hired a lawyer.this murder was never investigated when the time was right, when the bodies were found, not 50 years after the fact.the last person or persons to see the hunters alive was the ones who murdered them. so sad that there were no police in Gaspe that knew how to do their job, very sad.I am sure that even an amature could have collected more evidence then the whole police dept: of the Gaspe. as for Wilson Mcgregor, the police knew he never drew too many sober breaths, and was know to tell tales. as for Jack Eagle, many stories floated around about His (guns) and as to where they were hid over the years.

Never in my life did I say or write that Wilbert Coffin was guilty of the murders of three American hunters in June of 1953.

Anyone who has read 'To Build a Noose' or 'Tromper le Jury' will see that the entire work was in defense of Wilbert Coffin.

The book is based on the different documents in the Wilbert Coffin file. There is no name calling; Lies and obfuscations on the part of prosecutors are documented quoting page and paragraph of the trial transcript.

Likewise the instructions of Judge Gerard Lacroix to the jury were exact quotes.

The book is not a novel. Persons such as a former policeman, some lawyers and other astute readers have expressed their appreciation for a factual account.

Once again, Wilbert Coffin was innocent of those murders. I speak for myself and if some individuals have a mindset about certain things, so be it.

The blame for what happened to Wilbert Coffin does not stop at the Perce courthouse. There is plenty to go around - all the way to the Supreme Court and to the Prime Minister of the day and his cabinet.

If that's the case, Mr. Price, why would you take part in this blog?maybe the phrase "Wilbert Coffin was sacrificed on the altar of politics." should read "Wilbert Coffin was sacrificed on the altar of Clement Fortin's blog"!

The falsehood of paragraph 3 of Coffin’s affidavit, paragraph which is at the basis and which constituted the only justification for the rest of the affidavit, was sufficient in itself to vitiate the truthfulness of all the affidavit, to render highly suspect the other affirmations in the affidavit, to underline more Coffin’s deceitful attitude and whence to increase the strength of presumptions of guiltiness withheld by the Percé jury and appeal courts.Da ya want more, gossippers?

I beleive coffin should never have been hung on the evidence that was presented at the court, as they had no evidence, and all hearsay. no gun, yet it was said hunters were shot. I beleive the reason why they have never found the murderer is because there was none. it was done by bears.